kcd at daimlerchrysler.com
Fri May 25 02:35:20 UTC 2007
Sky Me wrote:
> 2007/5/25, Kevin Darcy <kcd at daimlerchrysler.com>:
>> If you're differentiating the answers based on the address range(s)
>> containing the source addresses of the queries, you've basically
>> reinvented the "view" feature of BIND 9.
> Hello Kevin,
> What's BIND 9's "view" feature?
>> I'm not sure why you need the nested CNAME though: why not just have
>> foo.split.example.com resolve to 188.8.131.52 for ISP A's clients and to
>> 184.108.40.206 for ISP B's clients?
> This is because Stanford::DNSserver framework doesn't have the same
> convenient config directives like BIND.So I just return a CNAME from
> this custom-built dns server,and this CNAME would be paresed to an A
> address finally by main DNS (BIND).
>> Or, for that matter, have foo.example.com itself resolve differently.
> Yes this is the thing I'm confused for.Does BIND support the feature
> of differentiating the answers based on the address range(s)
> containing the source addresses of the queries?
Yes. Check out doc/arm/Bv9ARM.ch06.html#view_statement_grammar relative
to the top-level of the BIND distribution.
More information about the bind-users